An Evaluation Constructivist Approach in High School

Athens Journal of Education - Volume 8, Issue 2, May 2021 – Pages 181-196

https://doi.org/10.30958/aje.8-2-4 doi=10.30958/aje.8-2-4

An Evaluation Constructivist Approach in High

School Teaching Process: A Scale Development

and Validation

By Dolgun Aslan, Seyfettin Arslan

† &Hasan Aydin

±

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the educational process of students in

terms of fundamental principles and approaches based on the constructivist

approach in Turkey. In this study, which was carried out using quantitative

methods, the internal consistency coefficient of the scale developed was

estimated to be high. Cronbach's alpha values ranged between α= .86 (teaching

process), and α= .69 (gains), and the alpha value for the total scale was calculated

as α= .75. The population of the research comprised students continuing their

education in three public and three private science high schools in Istanbul. The

initial number of items in the student scale was 25. As a result of the pilot test,

the student scale was reduced to 19 Items. In the exploratory factor analysis of

the scale used in this study 5 factors emerged.

Keywords: constructivist, educational process, evaluation, high school, science,

scale development.

Introduction

Although Turkey has used the constructivist approach in the development of

its curriculum since 2005, the last place finish among 34-member countries of

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in the field of

education shows that Turkey is facing a severe problem. Many studies have found

that the Turkish Education System still faces acute issues in terms of its curricula

and the desired results for education have not been achieved (Aslan & Aydin,

2013). Güneş and Baki (2011) used the case study method and suggested that

many factors prevented achieving the desired results in the teaching-learning

process. In their research, they stated that a lack of infrastructure, crowded

classrooms, and the inadequacy of teaching hours prevented the utilization of the

teaching process according to the constructivist approach principles.

Therefore, today, the Turkish Education System needs to solve the problems

related to the implementation of the constructivist approach forming the basis of

the current teaching processes. To do so, a determination of why the desired gains

cannot be achieved and which factors prevent their achievement is required.

Turkey has been interested in the changes and developments observed at the

global level, and the educational structure is being restructured in the light of these

and shortcomings are being determined, and attempts are being made to correct

Independent Researcher, Turkey.

†Independent Researcher, Germany.

±Associate Professor of Multicultural Education, Florida Gulf Coast University, USA.

Vol. 8, No. 2 Aslan et al.: An Evaluation Constructivist Approach in High School…

182

them. The changes observed in Turkey's population structure, family characteristics,

social structure, consumption methods, and political, social, scientific and

technological structure have forced the structure of the education system to

change, as well. As a result, drastic changes in the educational system and the need

for Turkey to align with global developments are necessary (MOE, 2005). Thus,

the new Turkish curriculum has been tried to meet these needs. At this point,

educational philosophies, teaching theories, contemporary teaching principles,

common targeted skills, and intermediary disciplines that are considered necessary

have been utilized.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate Turkish education system, to

determine the attitudes towards the constructivist approach in the context of the

data, to examine the teaching process based on the constructivist approach

according to the emerging learning products, to reveal how the science high school

curriculum is evaluated in line with the views of students, to determine the

deficiencies and mistakes in the teaching process, and to contribute to the

formation of a better teaching-and-learning process.

Literature Review

Sönmez (2008) emphasized that the constructivist approach stemmed from

Dewey's philosophical understanding and educational views, Piaget and

Vygotsky’s views on human biological characteristics, cultural structures, social

context and linguistic development, and Bruner and Aulowerel’s ideas about

learning. Dewey (1939) rejected the invariance and objectivity of knowledge and

stated that undertaking research and investigation was necessary. He also

dismissed the role-learning based education system and noted that education

should be seen as life itself, not as preparation for life. Dewey expressed critical

opinions in determining the basic principles of constructivism (Colburn, 2000;

Hall & Quinn, 2014; Mahoney, 2004).

The constructivist approach accepts aspects of learning (rather than its being

taught), learner autonomy, experiences in learning, primary sources of information,

the necessity of the fact that knowledge should be seen as a process of meaning

formation and the fact that knowledge does not depend on objective reality

(Aydin, 2014; Driscoll, 2000). In addition, this learning theory is based on

supporting the natural curiosity of humans and a consideration of how learning is

done, that the context is a determinant in learning and that the participation of the

students under teacher guidance is meaningful (Glasersfeld, 1989; Huang, Rauch,

& Liaw, 2010; Piaget, 1964; Vygotsky, 1997). In light of these considerations, the

constructivist approach considers individual experiences, context, subjective

values, and facilitator role of teachers is vital.

Similarly, Kaptan and Korkmaz (2001) emphasized that learning should be

seen as a process in which experimental, subjective, and individual efforts are

carried out. In terms of constructivism, Fer and Cırık (2007) said that, in general,

learning theory explains how an individual structures information in his/her

learning process, what activities are performed in this structuring process and what

Athens Journal of Education May 2021

183

factors affect this structuring process. As Akınoğlu (2003) stated, knowledge is

internalized by an individual's attribution of meaning to knowledge in a unique

way based on his/her experiences, observations, and logical analyzes. Parallel to

these opinions regarding the position and role of the student in the learning

process, Asan and Güneş (2000) argued that students should be given opportunities

to participate in activities, to ask questions about a problem and to achieve the

results by utilizing student-centred activities.

Thanasoulas (2002) emphasized that, in constructivism, students carry out and

acquire new learning by combining new acquisitions with what they hear, read,

and see based on individual experiences. According to Woofter (2019), and

Halpern (2017) students should be allowed to reveal their potential by enabling

them to bear the responsibility of learning through concrete experiences and

should be encouraged at the point of self-control. In addition, Açıkgöz (2009)

stated that teachers should have positive and real expectations of students. Because

the characteristics of students greatly influence the expectations of teachers,

teachers should provide the opportunity for the development of student self-

confidence and belief in success. The constructivist approach seeks to offer

approaches that will provide opportunities for students to meet expectations, to be

motivated, and to increase their interest in internal dimensions will play a critical

role in achieving educational goals and creating an efficient process (Aslan &

Aydin, 2015; 2016; Lapaglia, 2018).

This study was designed to develop a scale to evaluate the teaching process in

science high schools in terms of the basic principles and values of the constructivist

approach. Answers for the following questions were sought to achieve this

objective.

1. What are the results of the exploratory factor analysis of the Scale for

Evaluation of Teaching Process in Science High Schools in terms of the

constructivist approach?

2. What are the results of the reliability test for the Scale for Evaluation of

Teaching Process in Science High Schools in terms of constructivist

approach?

3. What are the common load values of all items in the Scale for Evaluation

of Teaching Process in Science High Schools in terms of the constructivist

approach?

Method

This study used a quantitative method. According to Yıldırım and Şimşek

(2008), reality is based on objective data in quantitative research. The main

objective in the quantitative process is to provide an opportunity to present results

with quantitative data through the measurement of variables and correlations.

The objective of this current study was to evaluate the teaching-learning

process in science high schools in terms of constructivist approach with a 5-point

Likert-type scale for statements that the researcher prepared. A scale comprising


184

25 statements was developed to determine the opinions of students. In this process,

faculty members who were experts in their fields were asked to examine the items

mentioned in the scale to determine if they were in accordance with the underlying

philosophy and logic of the constructivist approach and whether students could

easily understand them considering the readiness and perception levels of the

target audience. After this review, the necessary changes were made.

After the necessary permission was received from the Directorate of National

Education, a pilot study was conducted among 255 students in public and private

science high schools in Istanbul in the fall semester of 2014-2015. The 5-point

Likert type utilized had possible responses ranging from Strongly Disagree (1),

Disagree (2), Partially Agree (3), Agree (4), to Strongly Agree (5). An exploratory

factor analysis was conducted to the factor structure of the scale, which resulted in

5 factors in the student survey after the pilot study was conducted.

Participants and Sampling

The sample for this study was selected from three public science high schools

(F1, F2, F3) and three private science high schools (ÖF1, ÖF2, ÖF3) and a

questionnaire was designed for the students in these high schools. Within the

scope of this research, "A Scale for Determining the Views of Science High

School Students on Constructivist Approach" was prepared for quantitative

research and applied to the selected public and private science high schools in

Istanbul. Necessary appointments were made from the science high schools and

receipts of permission were presented to the school administrators. In this study,

sampling was conducted through Simple Random Sampling. Büyüköztürk (2012)

explained that the simple random sampling method was the random selection of

sampling units of the population to be examined regardless of any preconditions.

The population of this research comprised students in the selected public and

private science high schools operating under the Turkish National Education

system. The sample of the pilot study included students in the public and private

science high schools in Istanbul province, and the response rate was 87%.

The frequency and percentage values of the student dimension related to the

pilot scheme are given in Table 1 and Table 2.

Table 1. Frequency and Percentage Values for Gender

Group f Valid % Cum. %

Female 51 20 20

Male 204 80 100

Total 255 100

As seen in Table 1, 51 (20%) of the students in the sample group were female,

and 204 (80%) were male.


185

Table 2. Frequency and Percentage Values for Grade Level

Group f Valid % Cum. %

10th Grade 105 41.18 41,18

11th Grade 84 32.94 74,12

12th Grade 66 25.88 100

Total 255 100

As can be seen in Table 2, 105 (41.18%) of the students in the sample group

were 10th

graders; 84 (32.94%) were 11th

graders; and 66 (25.88%) were 12th

graders. Because the pilot project was carried out in October of 2015 9th

graders were not included because they could not fully comprehend the scale

for the teaching process because they were new to their schools.

Data Collection Tools

In this study, data were obtained through a questionnaire. According to Aydin

(2019), a measurement tool is valid only to the extent to which it can measure

what it is intended to measure. Thus, a measurement tool should be on a single

question basis and in a structure suitable for it as a whole. To achieve the objective

of this study, a literature search about constructivist teaching theory was

performed, and similar searches were conducted in the context of problems and

sub-problems. Also, the opinions of three experts in the field of constructivist

learning theory and educational programs and teaching were sought. Additionally,

seven people who were continuing their doctoral studies in the field of educational

sciences were asked to evaluate the scale.

The scale for determining the opinions of science high school students about

the constructivist approach was prepared with a 5-Likert type scale and utilized the

categories Strongly disagree (1), Disagree (2), Partially agree (3), Agree (4),

Strongly agree (5). To assess the validity and reliability of the scale, 25 items

related to the student dimension were determined during the pilot scheme process

and then applied. After the pilot scheme, item elimination was carried out during

factor analysis, and the number of items on the student scale was reduced to 19.

Data Analysis and Results

Cronbach’s alpha values for the total consistency and the internal consistency

calculated on the items contained in each sub-dimension are given below.

Table 3. Sub-dimensions Determined as a Result of Factor Analysis and Reliability

Coefficients of These Dimensions

Factor Cronbach’s alpha

Teacher approaches .821

Teaching process .860

Measurement and evaluation .779

Gains .691

Content and teaching materials .701

Total .753


186

As can be seen from the data in Table 3, the internal consistency coefficients

of the scale except for one factor were found to be high. The Cronbach’s alpha

values ranged from α= .86 (teaching process) to α= .69 (gains). Alpha value was

calculated as α= .75 for the total scale. These values indicate that the internal

consistency of the scale is extremely high. Because the internal consistency

coefficient for the total of the scale was higher than .70, the boundary value in the

sub-dimension of gains was not considered.

This section contains the results obtained from the analysis of the data that

were collected in the research with a 5-point Likert scale.

Table 4. The Results of Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) Measure of Sampling

Adequacy and Bartlett's Test of Sphericity

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) Measure of Sampling Adequacy .832

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity

Chi-Square Value 2764.977

S. Degree 171

p .000

Table 4 shows that the KMO value was, 832, and the Bartlett value was

significant (x2 = 2764.98; p < .001) after item elimination. Büyüköztürk (2012)

stated that KMO a value being higher than 50 and Bartlett value being significant

confirmed the eligibility of the data for factor analysis. In this context, the

sample size and structure were factorable, and the procedures were continued.

For this purpose, the results obtained by calculating the common load values

obtained by Principal Component Analysis are given in Table 5.

Table 5. Common Load Values

Item Extraction

Q2. The gains provide us to improve ourselves in many aspects (cognitive,

affective, psychomotor).

.529

Q3. The activities carried out during the teaching process are able to allow us

to comprehend and apply the information rather than memorizing it.

.693

Q4. We are allowed to obtain the knowledge and skills we need in daily life

during the teaching process.

.631

Q5. We are given the opportunity to practice with different teaching methods

and techniques according to the gains.

.680

Q7. Teaching activities are performed in a way that will provide the

development of our problem-solving skills.

.672

Q8. Teaching activities are capable of developing our questioning and critical

thinking skills.

.657

Q9. Topics (books, workbooks, materials…) contain contents that will allow

us to comprehend and practice the information rather than memorization.

.628

Q10. That there are a lot of topics in the content makes our learning more

difficult.

.556

Q12. The most part of a class hour is not being conducted with the teacher's

course presentation, but in a way that allows for our active participation.

.650

Q13. There is no time for implementation due to the intensity of topics. .542


187

Q14. Courses are being conducted by discussions, question-answers etc.

rather than the transfer of information by the teacher.

.783

Q15. The teaching process is carried out through collaborative processes that

allow the sharing of knowledge and skills rather than the presentation of

information by the teacher.

.698

Q16. We are given enough opportunities to turn the theoretical knowledge we

have gained during the teaching process into practice.

.575

Q19. Teacher gives us the opportunity to discover and comprehend the

information with appropriate tips rather than presenting the information as

ready.

.593

Q20. The performance and project tasks given in the teaching process do not

serve to achieve gains.

.692

Q21. Our performance and efforts in the course are not taken into consideration

in the assessment process as much as written and oral exam scores.

.501

Q22. Evaluations are made to measure higher level gains (application,

analysis, synthesis, and evaluation) rather than remembering the learned

information.

.863

Q24. Since there is no time left for application, homework is given for the

activities.

.631

Q25. There are not enough performance-based assessments. .862

As Table 5 shows, the common load values of all items were more than 50.

The lowest load value obtained was calculated as .501 in the 21st item. Due to the

high values, factor analysis was continued at this stage without an item elimination,

and the findings of the explained variance amounts and factor numbers are

presented in Table 6.

Table 6. Explained Total Variance Amounts

Factor

Initial Eigenvalues Total Factor Loads Totals of Rotated Factor

Loads

Tot. Vari.% Cum. % Tot. Vari.% Cum.% Tot. Vari.% Cum. %

1 6.936 36.508 36.508 6.936 36.508 36.508 3.201 16.846 16.846

2 1.801 9.480 45.988 1.801 9.480 45,988 2.890 15.208 32.054

3 1.375 7.236 53.224 1.375 7.236 53.224 2.422 12.749 44.803

4 1.262 6.644 59.867 1.262 6.644 59.867 2.203 11.597 56.400

5 1.050 5.527 65.394 1.050 5.527 65.394 1.709 8.994 65.394

6 .928 4.883 70.277

7 .804 4.230 74.507

8 .713 3.753 78.260

9 .667 3.510 81.770

10 .574 3.023 84.793

11 .554 2.915 87.708

12 .493 2.593 90.301

13 .413 2.172 92.473

14 .391 2.057 94.530

15 .337 1.773 96.303

16 .300 1.580 97.883

17 .220 1.159 99.043

18 .164 .861 99.903

19 .018 .097 100.000


188

Table 7. Rotated Component Matrix after Factor Analysis

Item Component

1 2 3 4 5

Q14. Courses are being conducted by discussions, question-

answers, etc. rather than the transfer of information by the

teacher.

.842

Q15. The teaching process is carried out through

collaborative processes that allow the sharing of knowledge

and skills rather than the presentation of information by the

teacher.

.729

Q12. The most part of a class hour is not being conducted

with the teacher's course presentation, but in a way that

allows for our active participation.

.646

Q19. Teacher gives us the opportunity to discover and

comprehend the information with appropriate tips rather

than presenting the information as ready.

.604

Q4. We are allowed to obtain the knowledge and skills we

need in daily life during the teaching process. .543

Q7. Educational activities are carried out in a way that will

allow the development of our problem-solving skills. .790

Q8. Educational activities are capable of developing our

questioning and critical thinking skills. .767

Q3. The activities carried out during the teaching process

are able to allow us to comprehend and apply the

information rather than memorizing it.

.578

Q16. We are given enough opportunities to turn the

theoretical knowledge we have gained during the teaching

process into practice.

.565

Q24. Since there is no time left for application, homework is

given for the activities. .514

Q22. Evaluations are made to measure higher level gains

(application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation) rather than

remembering the learned information.

.849

Q25. There are not enough performance-based assessments. .846

Q21. Our performance and efforts in the course are not

taken into consideration in the assessment process as much

as written and oral exam scores.

.644

Q20. The performance and project tasks given in the

teaching process do not serve to achieve gains. .800

Q5. We are given the opportunity to practice with different

teaching methods and techniques according to the gains. .726

Q2. The gains provide us to improve ourselves in many

aspects (cognitive, affective, psychomotor). .529

Q9. Topics (books, workbooks, materials…) contain

contents that will allow us to comprehend and practice the

information rather than memorization.

.759

Q13. There is no time for implementation due to the

intensity of topics. .690

Q10. That there are a lot of topics in the content makes our

learning more difficult. .666


189

As a result of the factor analysis made with principal components analysis

by using an Eigenvalue of 1, the initial scale had a five-factor structure. These

five factors explained 65.39% of the total variance. For the first factor, the

Eigenvalue was 6.94, and its factor loading was 36.51%. The difference

between the second factor and the loading was very high (approximately

27.03%). The following sections of the analysis were carried out on the multi-

factor structure, and the results obtained by rotating with varimax vertical

rotation technique are presented below to examine the factors into which the

items were gathered.

When the varimax vertical rotation technique examined the distribution of

the items to the factors, all items had more than a 10% difference (< .30) for

more than one factor. This indicated that all items in the scale had a sufficiently

distinctive structure. For that reason, factor analyses were ended without item

elimination. Table 8 shows the items, and the number of items in the sub-

dimensions is presented below.

Table 8. Sub-dimensions Determined as a Result of Factor Analysis and Items

that took Load Values from these Sub-Dimensions

Factor Number of Items Item Number

1 Teacher approaches 12, 14, 15, 19

2 Teaching process 3, 4, 7, 8, 16, 24

3 Measurement and evaluation 21, 22, 25

4 Gains 2, 5, 20

5 Content and teaching materials 9, 10, 13

Total 19

Table 8 shows the first factor has 4 items (Item 12, 14, 15, and 19); the second

factor has 6 items (Item 3, 4, 7, 8, 16, and 24); the third factor has 3 items (Item

21, 22, and 25); the fourth factor has 3 items (Item 2, 5, and 20) and the fifth factor

has 3 items (Item 9, 10, and 13). Items 20, 2, and 25 are opposite items for the

factor in which they are included. The entire scale has 19 items.

Each factor was titled after examining the items in the related factor. In this

context, the first sub-dimension was titled as the teacher approaches sub-

dimension; the second sub-dimension was titled as the teaching process sub-

dimension; the third sub-dimension was titled as the measurement and evaluation

sub-dimension; the fourth sub-dimension was titled as the gains sub-dimension,

and the fifth sub-dimension was titled as the content and teaching materials sub-

dimension. The increase in scores in all factors and total is regarded as the increase

of the related feature. After this stage, reliability analysis was performed for the

factors.

Distinctiveness comprises the points obtained by comparing the points of the

individuals in the upper and lower quarters (27%) of the test using the independent

group t-test. The aim is to reveal whether the answer given to that item

differentiates between the lower and upper groups and to prove its distinctive

power (Ergin, 1995). An independent samples t-test was used to determine

whether a significant difference existed between the arithmetic means of the upper


190

(27%) and lower (27%) groups that were determined according to factor total

points. The results are presented in Table 9.

Table 9. Independent Group T-test Results to Determine the Distinctiveness of

Scale Items

Groups N x ss xSh

T-test

t Sd p

Item 2 Lower 69 1.94 .968 .117

-12.990 136 .000 Upper 69 4.00 .891 .107

Item 3 Lower 69 1.58 .673 .081

-21.130 136 .000 Upper 69 4.17 .766 .092

Item 4 Lower 69 2.00 .891 .107

-11.519 136 .000 Upper 69 3.83 .969 .117

Item 5 Lower 69 2.51 .949 .114

-8.624 136 .000 Upper 69 3.87 .906 .109

Item 7 Lower 69 2.54 .917 .110

-10.867 136 .000 Upper 69 4.13 .803 .097

Item 8 Lower 69 2.19 .974 .117

-11.828 136 .000 Upper 69 4.04 .865 .104

Item 9 Lower 69 3.58 1.311 .158

-1.969 136 .043 Upper 69 3.26 1.462 .176

Item 10 Lower 69 3.14 1.353 .163

-2.343 136 .021 Upper 69 3.70 1.407 .169

Item 12 Lower 69 2.43 1.118 .135

-8.716 136 .000 Upper 69 4.04 1.049 .126

Item 13 Lower 69 3.42 1.311 .158

-1.992 136 .041 Upper 69 3.13 1.338 .161

Item 14 Lower 69 1.96 .812 .098

-11.232 136 .000 Upper 69 3.74 1.038 .125

Item 15 Lower 69 1.83 .839 .101

-12.208 136 .000 Upper 69 3.74 .995 .120

Item 16 Lower 69 1.96 .915 .110

-7.133 136 .000 Upper 69 3.22 1.149 .138

Item 19 Lower 69 2.23 .957 .115

-8.450 136 .000 Upper 69 3.78 1.187 .143

Item 20 Lower 69 1.96 1.169 .141

-9.256 136 .000 Upper 69 3.78 1.149 .138

Item 21 Lower 69 2.80 1.623 .195

-2.343 136 .021 Upper 69 2.52 1.623 .195

Item 22 Lower 69 3.09 1.160 .140

-2.789 136 .006 Upper 69 2.52 1.220 .147

Item 24 Lower 69 1.48 .609 .073

-16.550 136 .000 Upper 69 3.78 .983 .118

Item 25 Lower 69 3.10 1.178 .142

-2.840 136 .005 Upper 69 2.52 1.220 .147

Table 9 shows the results of the independent samples t-test that was

performed to determine the distinctiveness of the items and to determine whether a


191

significant difference existed between the arithmetic means of the upper (27%)

and lower (27%) groups. The differences were found as statistically significant for

all groups (p< .001). These differences were in favor of the upper groups. The

obtained results showed that the items of the scale were distinctive. After this

result, discriminant analysis was utilized to determine the distinctiveness of the

scale sub-dimensions and total points.

Table 10. Independent Group T-test Results to Determine the Distinctiveness

of Scale Sub-dimensions and Total Points

Point Groups N x ss xSh T-test

t Sd p

LOWER1 Lower 69 8.45 2.541 .306

-14.033 136 .000 Upper 69 15.30 3.164 .381

LOWER2 Lower 69 11.74 3.248 .391

-18.548 136 .000 Upper 69 23.17 3.959 .477

LOWER3 Lower 69 4.74 1.080 .130

-39.324 136 .000 Upper 69 12.77 1.308 .157

LOWER4 Lower 69 6.41 2.165 .261

-14.269 136 .000 Upper 69 11.65 2.155 .259

LOWER5 Lower 69 7.22 1.653 .199

-30.010 136 .000 Upper 69 13.96 .865 .104

TOTAL Lower 69 45.72 3.568 .430

-32.454 136 .000 Upper 69 67.78 4.375 .527

Table 10 shows the results of the independent samples t-test that was

performed to determine the distinctiveness of the scale’s total point and sub-

dimension points and to determine whether there was a significant difference

between the arithmetic means of the upper (27%) and lower (27%) groups. The

differences were found as statistically significant for all groups (p< .001).

These differences were in favor of the upper groups. The obtained results

showed that the items of the scale were distinctive. After this result, a

calculation of the correlation of scale items with total points was performed.

The results of Item-total and Item-remainder analyses that were performed for

this purpose are given in Table 11.

As shown in Table 11, all item correlations were significant in the Item-

Total and Item-Remainder analyses. These significance levels were realized at

the p< .05 level for items 9, 10, 13, 21, 22, and 25. and at p< .001 level in

others. All these results showed that all items were in the same structure. After

these procedures, the interfactor correlations were calculated, and the obtained

results are presented below in Table 12.


192

Table 11. Correlation Results of Item-Total and Item-Remainder

Item Total Point Item-Remainder

N r p r p

S2 255 .618 .000 .517 .000

S3 255 .771 .000 .701 .000

S4 255 .684 .000 .608 .000

S5 255 .514 .000 .415 .000

S7 255 .572 .000 .481 .000

S8 255 .610 .000 .517 .000

S9 255 .166 .020 .172 .020

S10 255 .130 .035 .130 .035

S12 255 .569 .000 .470 .000

S13 255 .136 .030 .163 .030

S14 255 .595 .000 .504 .000

S15 255 .655 .000 .572 .000

S16 255 .537 .000 .443 .000

S19 255 .482 .000 .374 .000

S20 255 -.485 .000 -.352 .000

S21 255 -.136 .030 -.206 .030

S22 255 .126 045 .255 .045

S24 255 .702 .000 .617 .000

S25 255 -.136 .030 -.264 .030

Table 12. Results of Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Analysis to Determine

Interfactor Correlations (N=255) LOWER2 LOWER3 LOWER4 LOWER5 Total

Teacher

approaches

r .659 .499 .507 .284 .713

p .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

Teaching process r .374 .598 .304 .847

p .000 .000 .000 .000

Measurement and

evaluation

r .395 .266 .131

p .000 .000 .044

Gains r .231 .687

p .000 .000

Content and

teaching materials

r .137

p .041

Table 12 shows the results of the Pearson Product-Moment Correlation

analysis that was conducted to determine whether a significant correlation exists

between the factors. As a result, a positive and significant correlation was found

between all factors. These results proved that all factors were in the same structure.


193

Discussion, Conclusion, and Recommendations

In this study, the internal consistency coefficients of the student scale were

found to be high. Cronbach's alpha for the total of the scale was calculated as

α=.75. These values indicate that the internal consistency of the scale is at

acceptable levels. For the reliability analysis of a scale that is prepared in

quantitative studies, if Cronbach's alpha value is more than .70, then it is

considered a good value (Aydin & Aslan, 2016; Aydin & Cinkaya, 2018; Kalaycı,

2008; Özdamar, 1999; Ulubey, Aydin, & Toraman, 2017). For the student survey,

the level at which each variable contributed to the main component by considering

the principal component analysis, and the common load values of each variable’s

contributing level to the main component were calculated. The common load

values of all items in the scale were found to be more than .50. The lowest load

value was calculated as .501 in the 21\st item. The fact that the common load

values were high in the study shows that item elimination was no longer necessary.

As a result of factor analysis made with principal component analysis by

using Eigenvalue as 1, the conclusion was made that the scale had a five-factor

structure at the first stage. These results show that the analysis should be continued

on a multi-factorial structure. After this step, to examine in which factors the items

were gathered, the distribution of the items to the factors was examined by

varimax vertical rotation, and all items reached more than 10% difference (< .\30)

in more than one factor. This data shows that all items in the scale have distinctive

enough structure.

As a result of the research, the first factor had 4 items; the second factor had 6

items; the third factor had 3 items; the fourth factor had 3 items, and the fifth factor

had 3 items. These data show us that each factor is related to the items in the scale

sufficiently. The number of items in the scale that was initially 25, was reduced 19

in the final stage. The title of each factor was determined after considering the

meanings of the items.

In this study, the first factor was labeled "teacher approaches," the second

factor "teaching process," third factor "measurement and evaluation," the fourth

factor "gains" and the fifth factor "content and teaching materials."

In this pilot scheme, the factors reached in the context of the data were related

to the elements in the curriculum. Ornstein and Hunkins (2014) stated that a

curriculum consists of aim, content, educational status (teaching process) and test

cases. The factors reached in the study in this respect were directly related to the

program elements. Items in the scale and the factors reached in the direction of

these items were related to the basic principles and approach of constructivist

teaching theory. The reached factors and the items they contain included points

like the position of the students in the process, whether an active participation

opportunity exists, teacher guidance, the appropriateness of the aims for the

student level, the reality of the content for the living conditions, the level of the

teacher approach, how the evaluation is made, and how much emphasis is put on

cooperative learning (Andrews, 2017; Fer & Cırık, 2007; Toraman, Aydin, &

Ulubey, 2016).


194

An independent group t-test was used to determine whether a difference

existed between the arithmetic averages of upper (27%) and lower (27%) groups

determined according to factor total scores. The differences were found statistically

significant for all groups and were observed in favor of upper groups. These

results showed that the items in the scale were sufficiently distinctive. Also, the

correlations of all items were significant in item-total and item-remainder analyses.

This indicates that all items of this scale were in the same structure.

The Pearson Product-Moment Correlation analysis found a positive correlation

among all factors, and all the factors were in the same structure. These data show

that the scale was compatible both on the item and factor basis and was competent

to serve the intended purposes. Thus, the conclusion can be made that the scale has

construct validity. The feedback obtained based on the assessments of the students

who were studying at science high schools may serve an essential function in the

elimination of these problems by showing the deficiencies and mistakes related to

the educational issues. The hope is that this scale will lead to other research.

References

Açıkgöz, K.Ü. (2003). Aktif Öğrenme [Active Learning]. İzmir: Eğitim Dünyası Yayınları.

World of Education Publications.

Açıkgöz, K.Ü. (2009). Etkili Öğrenme ve Öğretme (8. Baskı) [Effective Learning and

Teaching (8th ed.)]. İzmir: Biliş.

Akınoğlu, O. (2004). Yapılandırmacı Öğrenme ve Coğrafya Öğretimi [Constructivist

Learning and Geography Teaching]. Marmara Coğrafya Dergisi (Marmara

Geography Journal), 1(10), 83-94,

Andrews, K. (2017). Culture, Curriculum, and Identity in Education. [Book Review].

Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Studies, 4(2), 99-101.

Asan, A., & Güneş, G. (2000). Oluşturmacı Öğrenme Yaklaşımına Göre Hazırlanmış

Örnek Bir Ünite Etkinliği [A Sample Unit Activity Based on Constructivist Learning

Approach]. National Education Journal, 147, Ankara: MOE Publications.

Aslan, D., & Aydin, H. (2013). Voices: Turkish students' perceptions regarding the role of

supplementary courses on academic achievement. The Anthropologist, 16(3), 631-

643.

Aslan, D., & Aydin, H. (2015). Evaluation of the teaching processes at science high

schools based on a constructivist approach. A scale development study. Communications,

38(1A), 472–491.

Aslan, D., & Aydin, H. (2016). Philosophical paradigms of constructivism: A review of

literature. Usak University Journal of Educational Research, 2(2), 56-71.

Aydin, H. (2014). A comparative study between the United States and Turkey on teachers’

lesson planning effort. Review of Research and Social Intervention, 46(1), 99-117.

Aydin, H., & Aslan, D. (2016). Reliability and validity testing of a new scale for

measuring attitudes toward pedagogical teacher training. Journal of Education and

Learning, 5(3), 1-9.

Aydin, H., & Cinkaya, M. (2018). Global citizenship education and diversity (GCEDS): A

measure of students' attitudes related to social studies program in higher education.

Journal of Multicultural Education, 12(3), 221-236. doi:10.1108/JME-05-2017-0030


195

Aydin, H. (2019). The effect of multiple intelligence(s) on academic success: A systematic

review and meta-analysis. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics. Science and

Technology Education, 15(12), 1-22. doi:10.29333/ejmste/109008.

Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2012). Veri Analizi El Kitabı .(17. Basım). Ankara: PegemA Akademi

Yayınları.

Colburn, A. (2000). Constructivism: Science education’s grand unifying theory. Clearing

House, 74(1), 9-12.

Dewey, J. (1939). Education and American culture. In Intelligence in the modern world, J.

Ratner (ed.). New York, NY: New Library.

Driscoll, M.P. (2000). Psychology of learning for instruction. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Glasersfeld, E.V. (1998). Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching. In

Constructivism in science education, M.R. Mathews (ed.), (pp. 11-30). Dordrecht:

Springer.

Fer, S., & Cırık, İ. (2007). Yapılandırmacı Öğrenme Kuramdan Uygulamaya.

(Constructivist Learning: From Theory to Practice). İstanbul: Morpa.

Güneş, G ve, & Baki, A. (2011). Dördüncü Sınıf Matematik Dersi Öğretim Programının

Uygulanmasından Yansımalar (Reflections from the Application of Fourth Grade

Mathematics Course Curriculum). Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi,

41, 192–205.

Hall, N. & Quinn, R. (2014). Parental Involvement at the High School Level: Parents’

Perspectives. Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Studies, 1(1), 13-21.

Halpern, C. (2017). Book Review: In search of understanding: The case for constructivist

classrooms. American Journal of Qualitative Research, 1(1), 32-36.

Huang, H.M., Rauch, U., & Liaw, S.S. (2010). Investigating learners’ attitudes toward

virtual reality learning environments: Based on a constructivist approach. Computers

& Education, 55(3), 1171–1182.

Kalaycı, Ş. (2008). SPSS Uygulamalı Çok Değişkenli İstatistik Teknikleri. [SPSS Applied

Multivariate Statistical Techniques]. Ankara: Asil.

Kaptan, F., & Korkmaz, H. (2001). İlköğretimde Fen Bilgisi Eğitimi. Ankara: MEB.

Yayıncılık [Science Education in Primary Education]. Ankara: Ministry of Education.

Publishing.

LaPaglia, K. (2018). Book Review: Critical pedagogy: Notes from the real world.

American Journal of Qualitative Research, 2(2), 150-153.

Mahoney, M.J. (2004). What is constructivism and why is it growing? Contemporary

Psychology, 49, 360-363.

Ministry of Education (MOE) (2005). İlköğretim1-5. Sınıf Programları Tanıtım El Kitabı

[Primary education 1-5. Grade Curricula Introductory Handbook]. Ankara: State

Books.

Ornstein, A. C., & Hunkins, F. P. (2014). Foundations, principles and theory. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Özdamar, K. (1999). Paket Programlar İle İstatistiksel Veri Analizi [Statistical Data

Analysis with Packaged Software]. Eskişehir: Kaan.

Piaget, J. (1964). Development and learning. Readings on the development of children. In

Piaget Rediscovered, R.E. Ripple & V. N. Rockcastle (eds.). Ithaca, NY: W. H.

Freeman and Company Press.

Sönmez, V. (2008). Öğretim İlke ve Yöntemleri (2. Baskı) [Teaching Principles and

Methods (2nd ed.)]. Ankara: Anı Publishing.

Thanasoulas, D. (2002). History of English language teaching. Retrieved from https://bit.

ly/2NHLz3n.


196

Toraman, C., Aydin, H., & Ulubey, O. (2016). Exploring teacher candidates’ attitudes

towards pedagogical teacher training based on different variables. International

Education Studies, 9(9), 74-86.

Ulubey, O., Aydin, H., & Toraman, C. (2017). Determining to which degree pedagogical

teacher training serves the teaching profession: A scale development study.

Transylvanian Review, 26(1), 55-74.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1997). Educational psychology. New York, NY: St. Luce Press.

Woofter, S. (2019). [Book Review]: Building equity: Policies and practices to empower

all Learners. American Journal of Qualitative Research, 3(1), 136-139. https://doi.

org/10.29333/ajqr/5815.

Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2008). Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri (7. Baskı) [Qualitative

Research Methods (7th ed.)]. Ankara: Seçkin Publishing.

Documents

An Evaluation Constructivist Approach in High School